Is it Rare for Someone's Biogical Parents to Stay Together?

[loinburger]

I've given evidence that the census data is underreporting.

If you disagree with the census data, then post data from another source that you agree with. Don't just say "I don't like the census data, therefore my unsubstantiated assumptions must be correct."

[Al B. Sure!]

Questions I have regarding the census data:

1) Is the biological relationship of only the head of household being considered by the census? (Father has kids and married woman with no kids; fills out census as head of household; kids listed as biological and not in step-family)
2) Are people reporting biological relationships that don't exist? (Step-parents claiming non-biological children)
3) Children living part-time with parents. How are they considered?

[Ming]

Rare compared to 1950's America? Yes.

Less... certainly yes.
RARE.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You can't even move the bar properly. No way is 61% rare even compared to the 1950's

Complain about the stats all you want... but you have yet to post ANY statistics that prove your point.
It's NOT RARE, plain and simple.
You are WRONG

[Al B. Sure!]

Questions I have regarding the census data:

1) Is the biological relationship of only the head of household being considered by the census? (Father has kids and married woman with no kids; fills out census as head of household; kids listed as biological and not in step-family)
2) Are people reporting biological relationships that don't exist? (Step-parents claiming non-biological children)
3) Children living part-time with parents. How are they considered?

[kentonio]

Posting a list of questions about census data is not proof that the census data is incorrect. Have you found any data that makes your questions have relevance?

[Al B. Sure!]

Posting a list of questions about census data is not proof that the census data is incorrect. Have you found any data that makes your questions have relevance?

Yes. The homosexual data. It's biological impossible for both homosexual parents to be the biological parents of 79.5% of children in same-sex households. It's also reasonably doubtful that 79.5% of children in same-sex households have one gay parent being biological, unless surrogate mothers/fathers have exceeded adoption as the most common means for homosexual couples to have children?

[kentonio]

Yes. The homosexual data. It's biological impossible for both homosexual parents to be the biological parents of 79.5% of children in same-sex households.

Well thats a reasonable question, but then again it's not really a question. You know that both parents can't be biological. Given the impossibility of both parents being biological matches however, if those households were all shown as anything other than biological, it would show a misleading picture of non-stable family units.

It's also reasonably doubtful that 79.5% of children in same-sex households have one gay parent being biological, unless surrogate mothers have exceeded the rate of adoption?

Thats not a reasonable question, thats just conjecture. It should be easy enough to find the answer however.

[loinburger]

Yes. The homosexual data. It's biological impossible for both homosexual parents to be the biological parents of 79.5% of children in same-sex households. It's also reasonably doubtful that 79.5% of children in same-sex households have one gay parent being biological, unless surrogate mothers/fathers have exceeded adoption as the most common means for homosexual couples to have children?

Stop harping on this, it didn't support your position the first time you brought it up and it still doesn't support your position the fifth time you repeat it.

[Al B. Sure!]

Stop harping on this, it didn't support your position the first time you brought it up and it still doesn't support your position the fifth time you repeat it.

Because if the census considers gay couples to be biological parents of children, how do you know it's not considering non-biological heterosexual parents to be biological parents? If the questions posed result in such absurd results in the homosexual case, what does that say about the heterosexual?

[Ming]

Stop harping on this, it didn't support your position the first time you brought it up and it still doesn't support your position the fifth time you repeat it.

Sooooooo true.
He has yet to supply any proof for his lame ass RARE comment.
And the available proof shows he's WRONG.

[Al B. Sure!]

Sooooooo true.
He has yet to supply any proof for his lame ass RARE comment.
And the available proof shows he's WRONG.

According to the census, gay households with adopted or non-biological children are rare among gay households with children. According to the census, the vast majority of gay households with children involve children who are the biological children of the gay parents

[giblets]

According to the census, gay households with adopted or non-biological children are rare among gay households with children. According to the census, the vast majority of gay households with children involve children who are the biological children of the gay parents

Anyone with common sense can guess how "biological relation" was defined in that case. One of the gay parents is biologically related to the child.

[loinburger]

Because if the census considers gay couples to be biological parents of children, how do you know it's not considering non-biological heterosexual parents to be biological parents? If the questions posed result in such absurd results in the homosexual case, what does that say about the heterosexual?

The census is about self-identification, and you cannot make assumptions about how heterosexual couples self-identify based on how homosexual couples self-identify - the homosexual couples have a much more tenuous position in society and may have an interested in solidifying that position by self-identifying as biological parents (when only one parent is biological), while heterosexual couples are less likely to have the same motive.

If you want to support your position, then introduce facts relevant to your case. Stop with this "but I am asking a question that I can't answer and this somehow proves my point???" bull****.

[loinburger]

Al is going to have a fantastic career in finance.

Client: Where is my money?
Al: Well, another client withdrew a lot of money yesterday, so maybe you withdrew a lot of money yesterday?
Client: That's just crazy enough to make sense.

[Ming]

Alby.... You are WRONG

And the more you deny it, the more moronic you look. But that's no real surprise....